Search Climate Insights Directory

The document urges the United States Trade Representative to oppose the initiation of investment liberalization negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial meeting in Cancun.

This briefing examines the evolution and application of the Minimum Standard of Treatment (MST) in international investment law, specifically contrasting traditional customary international law with the broader interpretations adopted by NAFTA tribunals.

This research paper examines the relationship between the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and domestic water policies, specifically addressing concerns that the liberalization and privatization of water services may conflict with the right to water.

The document examines the legal tension between the Calvo doctrine, which subjects foreign investment to host-state domestic law, and the international minimum standard of treatment (MST). It details the transition from the restrictive 'Neer standard'—which required an 'outrage' to prove a violation—to more flexible interpretations in NAFTA Chapter XI cases like Mondev and Loewen. The report highlights the role of the Free Trade Commission's (FTC) 2001 Note of Interpretation in attempting to bind tribunals to customary international law and warns that abandoning the 'bad faith' requirement for MST breaches threatens good governance by allowing arbitrary second-guessing of sovereign regulatory actions.

The document argues that shifting from a strict 'necessity' test to a 'proportionality' test in WTO dispute settlements would transfer the power to balance trade interests against public policy goals from domestic democratic institutions to WTO panels and the Appellate Body. It specifically warns that proposed changes to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) could allow the WTO to outlaw domestic measures it deems 'out of balance' with their objectives, potentially undermining protections for the environment, human health, and consumers.

The paper argues that while GATS does not explicitly mandate privatization, its market access and national treatment obligations can indirectly encourage it and limit a government's capacity to implement universal service obligations (USOs) and subsidies. By analyzing environmental services commitments from the US, Estonia, the EC, and Nordic/Swiss countries, the authors demonstrate how specific 'carve-outs' and conditions in schedules can preserve regulatory flexibility. The document highlights the particular risk to developing countries, where privatization is often driven by international financial institutions, potentially locking them into GATS commitments that hinder the fulfillment of the human right to water.

The memorandum, submitted by a coalition of NGOs and civil society groups, asserts that the WTO's internal processes are weighted against developing countries, leading to rules that harm the environment and vulnerable populations. It identifies systemic failures including the misuse of the consensus system, the exclusionary 'Green Room' process, and the lack of neutrality in the WTO Secretariat. The authors propose a shift toward a more inclusive system featuring a regular General Assembly during Ministerial Conferences, transparent drafting of texts that reflect diverse views, and the cessation of 'Mini-Ministerials' and exclusive meetings.

The Center for International Environmental Law and other signatories argue that the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore FTAs undermine environmental protection through flawed investment rules and weak environmental provisions. They specifically highlight the failure to meet the 'no greater rights' standard for foreign investors, the absence of a citizen submission process, and the lack of an independent environmental cooperation institution, contrasting these agreements unfavorably with the U.S.-Jordan FTA and NAFTA.

The document argues that the combined influence of International Financial Institutions (IFIs), Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) creates a mechanism that forces developing nations toward the privatization of water services. It asserts that while privatization is presented as a universal solution for water scarcity, it often fails the poor and marginalized, as seen in South Africa and Bolivia. The text emphasizes that access to water is a fundamental human right, and that international legal frameworks can 'trap' governments by making liberalization irreversible and exposing them to costly international arbitration (such as through ICSID) if they attempt to re-regulate or reverse privatization to protect public health and human rights.

The briefing examines how the push for water privatization by the World Bank and IMF, alongside the constraints of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), undermines the ability of national governments to protect access to water as a human right. It highlights the 'lock-in' effect of these international legal frameworks, which can penalize states for adopting social or environmental regulations. The document recommends that governments carefully assess the impact of these agreements on marginalized populations and explicitly exclude sensitive sectors like water from trade commitments to ensure sustainable development.

A statement from global civil society organizations calling on the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) to adopt the World Commission on Dams (WCD) framework and policy principles within its developing Code of Ethics to prevent social and environmental harm.

The Center for International Environmental Law argues that granting private investors the jurisdiction to bring arbitral claims over investment authorizations and agreements undermines domestic legal systems and threatens regulatory autonomy over public assets and environmental protections.

The document argues that the State of Chile violated the fundamental rights of the Mapuche-Pehuenche communities of Ralco-Lepoy and Quepuca Ralco through the construction of the Ralco hydroelectric plant, which led to the destruction of ancestral lands, cemeteries, and ceremonial spaces. It contends that domestic legal remedies in Chile have been ineffective, illusory, or subject to unjustifiable delays, thereby satisfying the requirements for the admissibility of the petition before the IACHR. The text further argues that the project was economically inefficient and driven by the monopolistic interests of the company Endesa rather than public interest. Additionally, it details systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples in Chile's political and judicial systems, including the use of anti-terrorist and state security laws to criminalize indigenous demands.

The document examines the proliferation of bilateral and regional investment treaties, highlighting how they limit the ability of host states to regulate for public health and the environment. It critiques the investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanism for its lack of transparency and the use of 'indirect expropriation' claims to challenge environmental laws. The author recommends that new governance principles for foreign direct investment in hazardous activities ensure public transparency in arbitration, public consultation on host government agreements, and a commitment by companies to abide by evolving environmental and health legislation.

The document is a joint statement by various civil society organizations arguing against the inclusion of investment and other 'Singapore Issues' in WTO negotiations. The signatories claim that previous multilateral investment attempts, such as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), focused excessively on investor protections while neglecting poverty reduction and corporate accountability. They argue that current investor protection rules in NAFTA and bilateral agreements are used to challenge essential government actions for sustainable development. The declaration asserts that there is little empirical evidence that such rules increase investment quality or quantity and that the WTO is an inappropriate forum for these talks, as it should instead focus on reforms and issues critical to developing countries.

Over sixty civil society organizations have called on President George Bush to extend the deadline for the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) negotiations to allow for meaningful public participation and transparency. The organizations argue that current negotiations exclude civil society representatives outside the business sector and that the failure to publish negotiating texts hinders democratic input. They specifically express concern that labor issues will be addressed in May 2003 without input from Central American labor unions, and highlight potential threats to agriculture, sustainable development, worker rights, and access to medicines.

The document is a formal declaration by a broad coalition of non-governmental organizations and civil society movements opposing the inclusion of investment and other 'Singapore Issues' in WTO negotiations. The signatories argue that previous multilateral investment attempts, such as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), focused excessively on investor protections while neglecting poverty reduction, sustainable development, and corporate accountability. They contend that current investor protection rules in NAFTA and bilateral agreements are used to challenge essential governmental actions, and that there is little empirical evidence that such rules increase the quality or amount of investment flows. The declaration asserts that the WTO is the wrong forum for these talks and that adding these issues would hinder necessary reforms and impose rules that developing countries cannot afford.

The document argues that the synergy between World Bank and IMF conditionalities, investment treaties, and WTO agreements creates a 'lock-in' effect that forces the privatization of water services. This process often undermines the human right to water, as legally binding international obligations can penalize governments that attempt to implement social or environmental regulations, such as water price caps, to protect vulnerable populations.

The authors argue that the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore FTAs grant foreign investors substantive rights exceeding those of domestic investors under U.S. law, particularly regarding expropriation and minimum standard of treatment. They highlight the lack of a general environmental exception in the investment chapters and express concern that the investor-state dispute mechanism undermines the rule of law and national security while lacking citizen enforcement mechanisms.

The document introduces a collaborative project between the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) to define the current legal status of the intersection between trade law and environmental issues. By establishing a consistent baseline based on WTO Agreements and decisions, the authors intend to provide a platform for negotiators and civil society to distinguish between what the law currently is and what it should be, particularly in the context of the Doha Round of trade negotiations.